The following is article I wrote to the editor of a local paper due to his horrendous views concerning Roe vs. Wade. Amazingly the paper printed it.
To the editor, Having read your rhetoric concerning the possibility of the over turn of the unjust and immoral decision known as Roe vs Wade, I hope you permit me to expose some grievous errors in your reasoning - errors that have become gospel in the defense of Roe vs Wade. Should Roe vs Wade be relegated to the dust bin of history? The answer is yes! One reason for this is the Declaration of Independence of this country which states... â€śthat all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life...â€ť. For the past 30 years Roe vs Wade has denied life to over 40 million Americans whose only â€ścrimeâ€ť was to be conceived after Roe vs Wade. To deny that human life begins at conception is to reject the testimony of the infallible Word of God, The Holy Bible, and all accurate medical science. For, up until Roe vs Wade everyone knew what happened when a woman became pregnant: She is with child! Plus, for anyone who wishes to hear the testimony of the for profit abortion doctors, when they are willing to speak the truth, the major reason for abortion is not to save the life of the mother, it is the final solution to prevent a child being born. When you say that the â€śthe corrosive effect of the abortion controversy on our politics and culture has been worse than the abortions themselvesâ€ť I doubt if the American citizens of the womb who have felt the abortionistâ€™s tools of death and dismemberment (since Roe vs Wade) would agree with you. Plus, I doubt if all the women who are now dealing with all the physical, mental and spiritual problems associated with their abortions, problems the abortion providers did not mention prior to this â€śsimple procedureâ€ť, would agree with you either! Overturning Roe vs Wade will show that abortion is seen correctly as an act of violence against mothers and children that wicked men will still perform even if it is illegal. Should laws against drinking and driving be eliminated because some men continue to break them? Such is the foolish reasoning of those who say abortion should be legalized because of back alley abortions! A righteous country does not legalize that which is unrighteous just because wicked men display their wickedness in back alleys. Which leads me to one final comment. You refer to the results of â€ś...poll after poll...â€ť with respect to abortion. But the fact that 51% or even 100% of men agree that something is right does not make it right! There are moral absolutes that do not change based on the latest poll. Which is something few in this country or in elected office understand today. There is no â€śabout rightâ€ť when it comes to the unjust taking of human life through abortion. Abortion will always be wrong regardless of what is decided by the Supreme Court in this country or the next poll. And this country will continue to display its unrighteousness until Roe vs. Wade is seen for the unrighteous and unloving decision it was and always will be. Ron Johnson, Pastor Grace Reformed Baptist Church Amesbury, MA Phone: 978-388-9475 email@example.com
A weekly paper in Newburyport, MA wrote a front page article on an apostate congregational church in Newburyport that voted to perform unions of men with men and women with women. The following is the letter I wrote in response that was published by the paper the following Friday. Dear Editor, It is with a great sense of heaviness that I write in response to your front page article â€śCentral Church to hold gay marriagesâ€ť. That a group that professes to be a church of the LORD Jesus Christ would so twist the words of Christ and deny the clear, infallible, and inerrant teaching of the written Word of God, the Holy Bible, regarding the abomination and sin of homosexuality, is a testimony to the depravity of the human heart. Saying that the message of Jesus is â€śto love one anotherâ€ť requires one to ask, â€śHow is this accomplished?â€ť The Bible is clear on how love is shown both towards the Lord and our fellow man: â€śIf ye love me, keep my commandments.â€ť (John 14:15) â€śFor this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.â€ť (1 John 5:3) â€śAnd this is love, that we walk after his commandments...â€ť (2 John 1:6) Therefore it is impossible to be showing the love Jesus teaches when you agree to participate in and endorse something that is a breaking of the law of God. Homosexuality is a clear manifestation of sexual disobedience, not obedience, to the law of God regarding sexual relationships. Therefore it is impossible for the Central â€śChurchâ€™sâ€ť decision to be a manifestation of love towards either God or another person. It is actually a manifestation of hatred. It is also a grievous misuse of language to call an immoral and sinful union of a man with a man or a woman with a woman, a marriage. The Bible is clear as to what constitutes a true marriage. It is the covenant union, made in the presence of witnesses, of one man and one woman until physical death separates them. But, the glorious message of the Bible is that the LORD, in His free and sovereign mercy and grace through His saving gospel, is able to save and deliver those who are in bondage to sexual sin: â€śKnow ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.â€ť (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) This is the message of love and hope that all sinners, including homosexuals and lesbians, need to hear from the church. It is a message that they will not hear from the Central â€śChurchâ€ť which has decided that speaking the truth in love is something they do not want to do. Sincerely, Ron Johnson, Pastor Grace Reformed Baptist Church Amesbury, MA 978-388-9475
I submitted the following letter to the editor of a local paper due to all the adulation given to a popular professional athlete despite his evident fornication. It has not been printed. Dear Editor, The recent flurry of fawning articles over the fatherhood of Patriotsâ€™ quarterback Tom Brady displays how far New England has drifted from the infallible teaching of the Bible on the subject of fatherhood and sexual relations outside of the covenant of marriage. The Biblical definition for Mr. Brady and his girlfriend is fornicators. This is something the Pilgrims who landed on New Englandâ€™s shores and the Patriots who fought for its freedom would have understood very well, and not have ignored. Yet because so many men and women in New England are addicted to Sunday football rather than truth and righteousness, the hope of another unimportant super bowel is more important to them than the real spiritual danger that Mr. Brady and his girlfriend are in. For what will it profit a fornicating quarter-back if he gains another super bowl ring and loses his soul? The response of New England has clearly shown that his temporary ability to possibly achieve another coveted ring is far more important than the state of his never dying soul.
In response to inquiry by a brother in the Lord about my position on usury I wrote a seven page paper that I subsequently put up in audio format, with the same title, on this web-site. This is part 1 of this paper. Part 2 follows in a second blog entry. It is hard to measure the negative impact of the popular, but incorrect, view that usury means excessive interest and that the charging and receiving of interest/usury is justified by the Scriptures. It is not as I explain in the message with the above name.
â€śThou Shalt Not Bite Thy Brotherâ€ť By Ron Johnson, Pastor
Introduction: The purpose of this paper is to establish the conviction, from the Scriptures, that the popular practice of charging interest or usury to another person, made in the image of God, is not something that a confessing believer in the Lord Jesus Christ should do, if he desires to testify to the truth that loving God and his fellow man is more important to him than money. The author of this paper did not always hold to this Biblical position. He grew up believing, as the majority in the world, and sadly most in the visible church do today that charging or receiving interest or usury is not wrong but actually allowed and endorsed by God. However, as this paper will show, such a view is not supportable by the written Word of God, the Holy Bible regardless of how acceptable men, whether believer or non-believer, think it to be.
Part 1: Usury and Interest are Synonyms.
One of the first things that needs to be established is the meaning of the words usury and interest. For the purposes of this paper, as well as it being the conviction of the author, interest and usury mean the same thing. They are synonyms. The popular idea that usury is excessive interest is something that is imported into the discussions on this subject as a means to justify the practice of receiving interest. But there are no verses in Scripture that justify saying that usury is excessive interest. Since the Bible is its own dictionary, one should search the Scriptures to see if there is any passage that defines usury. There is such a passage. It is in the book of Nehemiah chapter 5 where Nehemiah rebukes his fellow countrymen because they are being unloving towards their brethren by charging them usury. In verse 10 he tells his fellow brethren to stop charging usury. Then at the end of verse 11 Nehemiah reveals the amount of usury that they were wrongly charging their brothers:
Nehemiah 5:10-11 I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury. Restore, I pray you, to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their oliveyards, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the corn, the wine, and the oil, that ye exact of them. (Emphasis added)
Notice that Nehemiah is telling them to return the hundredth part that they were charging as usury. Therefore if one was looking for a Biblical definition of usury, it is 1%! I know of no one today that would see a 1% interest charge as being excessive. They would probably see it as a bargain! Therefore the idea that usury means excessive interest is not supportable by the Word of God. It is not hard to see 1% as being the smallest level of usury considered in ancient Israel as they most likely would not have dealt in fractions of percentages as is possible today with our â€śdigitalâ€ť money. This simply means that requiring repayment of any amount over what was originally loaned is usury.
Part 2: Usury or Interest is a Negative and Unloving Action
If one was to base his opinion on usury/interest from the teachings of the world, and the majority of the visible church today, it would be seen as a beneficial and even wise monetary practice. But that is only if you are on the receiving end of the usury. For little thought is given, by those receiving the usury, to the burden that it causes to those who are required to pay back more than what was originally loaned. Few who receive usury stop and think about how much longer it takes a student to repay a loan for his education, or a family to repay a mortgage, or the level of the usury that is consuming the taxes they pay. And it is a burden as seen by how the only other form of the word that is translated usury in the Old Testament has reference to the bite of a snake. It is not surprising that no one enjoys being charged interest just as no one enjoys being bitten by a snake. For example:
Genesis 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward. (Emphasis added)
Numbers 21:6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. (Emphasis added)
Proverbs 23:32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. (Emphasis added)
There are many other verses that could be quoted, that show the same truth, but the above show that the uniform use of the word from which the word translated usury is derived refers to the biting of a snake. A person who is being charged usury or interest is being bitten, not unlike a horse or a person who is being bitten by a snake. The person who is charging or receiving the usury is the one who is biting his fellow man like a snake! It is a negative and unloving action.
Part 3: John Calvinâ€™s Arbitrary Division Is No Justification for Usury
Despite the clear teaching of the Bible, as to the negative and unloving action, of receiving interest, many embrace the idea put forward by one no less than John Calvin to justify it. John Calvin developed the idea that there is a difference between business usury and private usury. Business usury is charged to those in business who needed a loan. Private usury is charged to a private person who needed a loan. The idea being that if usury is charged to a needy business man there was nothing wrong with it. But charging usury to someone who was in need privately was wrong. But there is nothing in Scripture to justify this arbitrary and artificial division! It is imported into the Scriptures. It cannot be derived from the Scriptures. And it is easy to see why it is not! Many, if not the majority, of businesses in Ancient Israel, were private or home based businesses. An ancient Israeli business man working out of his home, or on his farm, would not have understood this arbitrary distinction between personal and business loans - the personal loan without usury and the business loan with it. For, how many of those being charged usury in Nehemiahâ€™s day were simply trying to establish their business or farm? Therefore based on this arbitrary division Nehemiah could not have rebuked all those who were charging interest to their brethren. But even if this false division was allowed, it would still condemn the whole personal loan business that is engaged in by professing Christians today. Because, why does a person seek out a loan? Because he is poor and does not have the money he needs to purchase the things he needs like a car to go to work or a home to live in with his family.
Part 4: Another Arbitrary Division: Usury is Unlawful Only if Charged to the Poor
There is no denying the fact that the poor are often singled out when the subject of usury is mentioned in the Scriptures:
Exodus 22:25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.(Emphasis added)
Leviticus 25:35-36 And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.(Emphasis added)
The argument from verses such as those above is that it is only the poor that are not to be charged usury. It is alright to charge usury to someone who is not poor. There is more than one problem with this line of reasoning. The first is that there are passages of Scripture that prohibit the charging of usury without any reference to the poor:
Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:(Emphasis added)
Psalm 15:1 & 5 LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?... He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.(Emphasis added)
A second problem is that seeing the texts that mention the poor as legitimizing charging usury to the â€śnon-poorâ€ť is reading an interpretation into the these verses to justify charging usury to the â€śnon-poorâ€ť. For, rather than seeing the texts that mention the poor as legitimizing charging usury to the â€śnon-poorâ€ť they should be seen as describing those who are most likely to be the ones who are going to need a loan. For, a person with money does not need to borrow money unless he is unwilling to wait for something he desires or is coveting. If it is something that he legitimately needs and cannot afford it, then he would fall under the poor category to whom the non usury restriction applies.
This is part 2 of my response to an inquiry by a brother in the Lord about my position on usury. I wrote a seven page paper that I subsequently put up in audio format on this web-site. It is hard to measure the negative impact of the popular, but incorrect, view that usury means excessive interest and that the charging and receiving of interest/usury is justified by the Scriptures. It is not as I explain in the audio message with the above name or in this blog entry.
Part 5: A Single Old Testament Verse is No Justification for Charging Usury Today
Despite the clear negative and unloving aspects of charging usury and the number of verses in the Old Testament that prohibit it as shown above some will seek to justify charging it on the basis of verse 20 of
Deuteronomy 23: Deuteronomy 23:20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it. (Emphasis added)
But the weakness of this argument is seen in a number of ways as well. First, How does an Israeliteâ€™s ability to charge usury to a stranger, a non-5 Israelite, justify a Christian charging usury to another Christian? Or a fellow American charging usury to a fellow American? It is much more legitimate and loving to apply the part of the verse that prohibits the charging usury to a brother as having application to our fellow Christians and countrymen, who need a loan, and not treating either of them like strangers in charging them usury. To use the argument that since Godâ€™s people were able to charge usury to a stranger or foreigner, I am able to charge usury to my fellow citizen or fellow believer shows the extent to which those who want to justify this biting practice are willing to go to. A New Covenant believer is not to base his dealings with his fellow believers and countryman on what the Lord allowed his people to do under the Old Covenant towards strangers. Second, if the stranger being referred to in the above verse has reference to the Canaanite nations, the Israelitesâ€™ ability to charge them usury was a form of economic warfare against the Canaanite nations. Because the only person who benefits from the charging of usury is the one charging it. The one having to pay it is being bitten. For, all that one needs to do to see the fact that interest is a form of economic warfare is to consider the interest paid to foreigners because of the massive United States deficit. It has been estimated at one million dollars a day for every man, woman, boy and girl in the United States!
Part 6: The Lordâ€™s Parables Do Not Justify Receiving Usury
The argument that Jesus justifies the charging of usury in His parable of the talents in Matthew and Luke is another example of the extent to which people will go to justify an unloving practice: Matthew 25:24-27 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.(Emphasis added)
Luke 19:20-23 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
A quick reading of these two passages might give a person that Jesus was justifying the practice of receiving usury which is the popular but incorrect understanding of these verses. For Jesus is not justifying the practice of receiving usury. He is exposing the hypocrisy on the part of the lazy servant. For read how the lazy servant refers to the Lord in these verses. He refers to him as a hard and austere man who reaps where he has not sown. But the Lord exposes the hypocrisy of this lazy servant by saying, â€śif this is the type of man you think I am then you should have put my money in the bank and collected usury on it because receiving usury is the practice of a man who is austere! To use these parables to justify the receiving of usury is to dishonor the Lord because He is not hard, He is not austere and He certainly does not reap where He has not sown because He is the source and provider of all things! To use these verses to justify the receiving of usury, which is the popular misuse of these verses, is to ignore the true picture of what the receiving of usury or interest displays. It displays hardness of heart and austerity of heart. These parables do not justify the receiving of usury despite how often they are quoted to justify the practice, unless a person wants to display a hard and austere heart! A confessing believer in Christ should want to display a loving and not a hard and austere heart.
Part 7: Jesus Sets A Much Higher Standard
But, rather than laboring to find verses that justify the charging and receiving of usury, a futile quest as seen by the above, the confessing believer in Christ should realize that Jesus sets a far higher standard â€“ one that he should seek, by the grace of God, to conform his use of money to:
Luke 6:34-35 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. (Emphasis added)
Notice Jesus says, â€ś...that sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. This statement does not support the receiving of usury even by non-believers. But then Jesus goes on to set a higher standard for those who confess to believe in Him: â€ś...and lend, hoping for nothing again...â€ť. When a believer lends, he is to lend without even hoping to receive anything back! Is it because the majority of professing believers have not mortified their love of money that they do not hear the higher standard that Jesus sets here? There is absolutely no New Testament justification for a believer receiving usury when the Lord says he is not even to be concerned about receiving any of it back. If a believer cannot lend without fear of not receiving it back again, then he should not loan it out in the first place. He definitely should not loan it out with the hope of receiving it back with interest.
Part 8: â€śWho Would Loan?â€ť is an Invalid Argument
Because the practice of the charging and receiving of usury has become so ingrained and acceptable in the church and culture today an invalid argument often heard is, â€śWho would loan?â€ť â€śWho would loan their money if they were unable to receive it back with usury?â€ť Who would loan? Those who are more concerned about helping others, whether the other is a neighbor, a college student, a young family, or their country. Despite how difficult this is for those who have been weaned on the â€śnecessityâ€ť of charging interest, it is possible to loan money to another person without expecting to receive usury back from them! Usury is seen as an essential part of the loan process today because this society, and the majority of the church in it, are not submitting themselves to the clear teaching of the Word of God on the negative and unloving practice of biting our fellow man through the charging and receiving of interest:
Romans 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
It should not only be Roman Catholics that are expressing outrage at the Da Vinci Code Book and movie. Reformed Evangelicals should be as well because this book and movie is a direct assault on: 1. The authority, sufficiency and accuracy of the...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
It should grieve any true believer over the attention being paid to the heretical anti-Christian document called Judas. That teachers in Bible Colleges and Seminaries think this document is a mark of the diversity of Christianity in the second...[ abbreviated | read entire ]